Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

kodoherty93 · 09-10-2012 09:42PM

Also I think private schools are legally allowed to pay their teachers less than public schools if they arent hired directly hired by the department of education.

Therefore saving the taxpayer more money

ardmacha · 09-10-2012 09:57PM

It said Ireland was spending “significantly more” than the OECD average on health and education

Ireland has a higher birthrate than pretty much everywhere in the OECD and a relatively high level of participation in third level education, as a consequence we could be spending more on education than other places while still spending less per student. Of course the younger population means we should be spending less on health, which is whole other issue.

K-9 · 09-10-2012 10:13PM

jank wrote: »

Fancy that, Labour coming out with a proposal that will actually cost the state more and has not real targets or goals in achieving educational outcomes all for the goal of "equality".

Madness.

People seem to assume it would cost the state more. It costs close to €4,000 for each student in private secondary level education, the capitation grant for public secondary was €345 a year, asti.ie, there also other grants for science and economics, but I'm not sure where this idea that it would cost us money comes from.

doc_17 · 09-10-2012 10:22PM

ted1 wrote: »

doc_17 wrote: »

Just a quick question....

Why do parents send their child to fee paying schools?

Is it to get a "better education"? How does going to a fee paying school lead to a "better education"?

Is it smaller classes?

Is it because of better facilities?

The answers should tell you whether it not fee charging schools get too much money (or not) from the state.

a better all round education. smaller class sizes, better facilities, broader subject choice etc,etc.

So if they are able to provide all that, then surely they have no need of as much as they are currently getting from the state.

ted1 · 09-10-2012 10:52PM

doc_17 wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

doc_17 wrote: »

Just a quick question....

Why do parents send their child to fee paying schools?

Is it to get a "better education"? How does going to a fee paying school lead to a "better education"?

Is it smaller classes?

Is it because of better facilities?

The answers should tell you whether it not fee charging schools get too much money (or not) from the state.

a better all round education. smaller class sizes, better facilities, broader subject choice etc,etc.

So if they are able to provide all that, then surely they have no need of as much as they are currently getting from the state.

They do. You do realise that they get less from the state.

JustinDee · 09-10-2012 10:55PM

doc_17 wrote: »

So if they are able to provide all that, then surely they have no need of as much as they are currently getting from the state.

Take away subsidisation and none is possible. Also and more importantly, as said before, as education facilities teaching national curriculum material they are ENTITLED to these subsidies for each pupil attending.

VinLieger · 10-10-2012 12:11AM

K-9 wrote: »

People seem to assume it would cost the state more. It costs close to €4,000 for each student in private secondary level education, the capitation grant for public secondary was €345 a year, asti.ie, there also other grants for science and economics, but I'm not sure where this idea that it would cost us money comes from.

Each student in private education costs 3500 less to the state than a student in public education, if you do away with this payment then the fees for these schools sky rockets and more than likely doubles.

Now the popular assumption is that these families can afford this but many of the parents sending their children to these schools are doing so at the expense of other luxries and cannot afford such a hiking of fees, this will lead to these children being reintroduced to the public system and thus costing the department of education twice as much. It is a numbers game but more than likely this will end up costing the taxpayer more than the 100 million being given to private schools.

Also people need to understand that in reality and legally the state is not subsidising private education. Each student is legally entitled to free education under our constitution so the parents who chose to send their children to private schools are effectively subsidising their childrens public education. But they are still paying the taxes that go towards education while their children are only costing the state half as much while they still pay fees that are generally in excess of what the state spends per student.

K-9 · 10-10-2012 12:36AM

I understand all that, in theory it costs more, ASTI have said the €90/100 Million saved will cost €30/40 Million. I just want to see how they arrived at that figure. The capitation budget isn't that much, about 10% of the teacher subsidy, can you explain how it would cost more than €3,500 per pupil?

VinLieger wrote: »

Each student in private education costs 3500 less to the state than a student in public education, if you do away with this payment then the fees for these schools sky rockets and more than likely doubles.

Now the popular assumption is that these families can afford this but many of the parents sending their children to these schools are doing so at the expense of other luxries and cannot afford such a hiking of fees, this will lead to these children being reintroduced to the public system and thus costing the department of education twice as much. It is a numbers game but more than likely this will end up costing the taxpayer more than the 100 million being given to private schools.

Also people need to understand that in reality and legally the state is not subsidising private education. Each student is legally entitled to free education under our constitution so the parents who chose to send their children to private schools are effectively subsidising their childrens public education. But they are still paying the taxes that go towards education while their children are only costing the state half as much while they still pay fees that are generally in excess of what the state spends per student.

ted1 · 10-10-2012 08:16AM

K-9 wrote: »

I understand all that, in theory it costs more, ASTI have said the €90/100 Million saved will cost €30/40 Million. I just want to see how they arrived at that figure. The capitation budget isn't that much, about 10% of the teacher subsidy, can you explain how it would cost more than €3,500 per pupil?

A private school doesn't get money for building maintenance etc, or lighting, heating etc. Rent

This is where the extra 3.5k goes.

K-9 · 10-10-2012 08:26AM

A private school doesn't get money for building maintenance etc, or lighting, heating etc. Rent

This is where the extra 3.5k goes.

Yeah, that's what it costs the private schools, the thread is more about what it costs the state.

Isn't that what the capitation grant of €345 a year is for in public schools?

I'm not seeing where the state would pay out more than the €3,500 saved. I'm not seeing much in the way of back up for "it will end up costing us more" other than people just saying "it will end up costing us more".

Farmer Pudsey · 10-10-2012 08:33AM

ted1 wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

I understand all that, in theory it costs more, ASTI have said the €90/100 Million saved will cost €30/40 Million. I just want to see how they arrived at that figure. The capitation budget isn't that much, about 10% of the teacher subsidy, can you explain how it would cost more than €3,500 per pupil?

A private school doesn't get money for building maintenance etc, or lighting, heating etc. Rent

This is where the extra 3.5k goes.

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, that's what it costs the private schools, the thread is more about what it costs the state.

Isn't that what the capitation grant of €345 a year is for in public schools?

I'm not seeing where the state would pay out more than the €3,500 saved. I'm not seeing much in the way of back up for "it will end up costing us more" other than people just saying "it will end up costing us more".

The capitation grant covers heating/lighting etc however it dose not cover capital expenditure etc for school buildings. 10% of the average teachers pay would be somewhere between 4-6K alone a year

K-9 · 10-10-2012 08:43AM

Well yes, some new rooms and buildings will need to be built, with all the private schools closing, we can take over those! Tbh it's far more likely schools will have to make do until resources are available.

The 10% is in relation to the subsistence payment, not teachers pay.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

I understand all that, in theory it costs more, ASTI have said the €90/100 Million saved will cost €30/40 Million. I just want to see how they arrived at that figure. The capitation budget isn't that much, about 10% of the teacher subsidy, can you explain how it would cost more than €3,500 per pupil?

The capitation grant covers heating/lighting etc however it dose not cover capital expenditure etc for school buildings. 10% of the average teachers pay would be somewhere between 4-6K alone a year

OldNotWIse · 10-10-2012 09:28AM

Sleepy wrote: »

Once again, I'm not arguing for a communist state here. I'm saying that we, as a society, should be aiming to create an environment where a child's chances of moving up that ladder are based on their talent and hard-work rather than on the fact they have the right school tie or that their parents happened to fall on hard times during their education.

See, this is the problem I have with people like you - you labour under the illusion (perhaps because it suits your agenda to do so) that people will automatically do well because they went to fee-paying schools. Do you realise how insulting that is? I went to a fee paying school but I worked damn hard while I was there. I didn't drink until I started college. I studied hard, and I worked for and deserve everything I have achieved. I certainly will not have my hard work discounted by those who insist of generalisations to promote their arguments.

Plenty of girls in my school did not put in any work and barely passed the Leaving, if even.

Of course the perfect recipe for success is probably intelligent student + good work ethic + private education, but please stop peddling the ridiculous idea that those who are lacking in intelligence and/or work ethic will somehow magically be "successful" just because their school is private.

OldNotWIse · 10-10-2012 09:33AM

ted1 wrote: »

look at the other side of the coin, your pulling kids down the ladder.

If a child is a room, the general ambition of the room is to be a supermarket manger, he is Being pulled down.

if he was in a private school, the general ambition may be to be a trader, broker, doctor, etc.

Why are you comparing a room to a private school? Are we not comparing public and private schools?

Also, whats wrong with being a supermarket manager?

ardmacha · 10-10-2012 09:38AM

I didn't drink until I started college.

Truly epic sacrifice, indeed.

I'm sure nobody from a non fee paying school can say this.

Sleepy · 10-10-2012 09:50AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

See, this is the problem I have with people like you - you labour under the illusion (perhaps because it suits your agenda to do so) that people will automatically do well because they went to fee-paying schools. Do you realise how insulting that is? I went to a fee paying school but I worked damn hard while I was there. I didn't drink until I started college. I studied hard, and I worked for and deserve everything I have achieved. I certainly will not have my hard work discounted by those who insist of generalisations to promote their arguments.

Plenty of girls in my school did not put in any work and barely passed the Leaving, if even.

Of course the perfect recipe for success is probably intelligent student + good work ethic + private education, but please stop peddling the ridiculous idea that those who are lacking in intelligence and/or work ethic will somehow magically be "successful" just because their school is private.

It's not an assumption that people will automatically do well: my problem is that in theory they'll (a) receive a better education than another student with the same abilities and work ethic (provision of a good education being something I regard as one of the primary responsibilities of the state) and (b) will be afforded opportunities not available to those of equal ability and effort who don't have that the connections one garners by being educated in an environment where all are middle or upper class.

I don't assume that a private education guarantees success in life, it certainly provides a competitive advantage though and to deny that is simply being disingenuous.

Oh, and what exactly are "people like me"? The plebs is it?

JustinDee · 10-10-2012 10:30AM

Sleepy wrote: »

It's not an assumption that people will automatically do well: my problem is that in theory they'll (a) receive a better education than another student with the same abilities and work ethic (provision of a good education being something I regard as one of the primary responsibilities of the state) and (b) will be afforded opportunities not available to those of equal ability and effort who don't have that the connections one garners by being educated in an environment where all are middle or upper class.

I don't assume that a private education guarantees success in life, it certainly provides a competitive advantage though and to deny that is simply being disingenuous.

Oh, and what exactly are "people like me"? The plebs is it?

This is just a class thing, is it? Pull the other one.
What about the example I gave re.my neighbours? Are they a worse off 'class' than myself? Or am I worse off?
Why should fees for university (an optional extension of one's education forming years) be subsidised and not those of a secondary facility, even though the latter is entitled as it runs per national curriculum?

You have yet to prove anything other than "wealthy" and "poorer off" being highly subjective terms and that they get bandied about in a ridiculous begrudging convenient 'class war' when issues like this arise.

ted1 · 10-10-2012 10:40AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Why are you comparing a room to a private school? Are we not comparing public and private schools?

Also, whats wrong with being a supermarket manager?

I'm talking about a classroom.this is the roo where pupils are surrounded by there peers on a daily basis.

nothing wrong with being a supermarket manager , but people from private schools aspire to be better, like maybe a director of supermarket chain etc.

you just highlighting my point, with regards ambitions being lower.

what makes you think that private schools would be handied over to the state. you have your blinkers on, and are only seen the world as ou want to.

OldNotWIse · 10-10-2012 10:47AM

Sleepy wrote: »

It's not an assumption that people will automatically do well: my problem is that in theory they'll (a) receive a better education than another student with the same abilities and work ethic (provision of a good education being something I regard as one of the primary responsibilities of the state) and (b) will be afforded opportunities not available to those of equal ability and effort who don't have that the connections one garners by being educated in an environment where all are middle or upper class.

I don't assume that a private education guarantees success in life, it certainly provides a competitive advantage though and to deny that is simply being disingenuous.

Oh, and what exactly are "people like me"? The plebs is it?

Wow, paranoid much? "People like you" refers to people (like you) whose posts suggest that people like me only do well because we went to private schools. I thought that was obvious from the post? I dont know how you managed to extract some kind of insult from that tbh

Also, what exactly are "connections"?? I'm not in contact with anyone I went to school with (mostly because they were all snobby b1tches lol), I did not use any "connections" when doing my state or college exams (to do so would be next to impossible not to mention highly unethical).
Edit: also, how many times do you have to be told that not everyone who went to a fee paying school is middle class? Some of our parents made sacrifices.

OldNotWIse · 10-10-2012 10:48AM

ted1 wrote: »

I'm talking about a classroom.this is the roo where pupils are surrounded by there peers on a daily basis.

nothing wrong with being a supermarket manager , but people from private schools aspire to be better, like maybe a director of supermarket chain etc.

you just highlighting my point, with regards ambitions being lower.

what makes you think that private schools would be handied over to the state. you have your blinkers on, and are only seen the world as ou want to.

No I was seeking clarification of your point, is that ok with you?

Also, where did I say that private schools would be handed over to the state? I think you have confused me with someone else

JustinDee · 10-10-2012 10:50AM

ted1 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with being a supermarket manager , but people from private schools aspire to be better, like maybe a director of supermarket chain etc

This is a presumptuous generalism. You are automatically placing a ceiling on a pupil's aspirations based on the secondary school they attend.
Since you're guessing, I'll have a go too. in the main part, the ascendancy towards career goals is only sculpted finally when a pupil enrols for third-level education. As the Rep.Ireland has a relatively high third-level turnover of students be that private, state run or granted, I would say this is more applicable than that which you attempted (and in my view, failed) to convey.

Without the entitled subsidy funding, many private fee-paying schools would go out of business and close down. This is what the previous poster meant. No blinkers. Just a pragmatic and very real assessment of the pros and cons.

OldNotWIse · 10-10-2012 10:51AM

ardmacha wrote: »

Truly epic sacrifice, indeed.

I'm sure nobody from a non fee paying school can say this.

Your words not mine

ted1 · 10-10-2012 10:54AM

JustinDee wrote: »

This is a presumptuous generalism. You are automatically placing a ceiling on a pupil's aspirations based on the secondary school they attend.
Since you're guessing, I'll have a go too. in the main part, the ascendancy towards career goals is only sculpted finally when a pupil enrols for third-level education. As the Rep.Ireland has a relatively high third-level turnover of students be that private, state run or granted, I would say this is more applicable than that which you attempted (and in my view, failed) to convey.

QUOTE]

No assumptions being made, this is all from personal experience. those in private schools do tend to aspire to be in a higher position than those who go to a public school.

OldNotWIse · 10-10-2012 10:56AM

JustinDee wrote: »

This is just a class thing, is it? Pull the other one.
What about the example I gave re.my neighbours? Are they a worse off 'class' than myself? Or am I worse off?
Why should fees for university (an optional extension of one's education forming years) be subsidised and not those of a secondary facility, even though the latter is entitled as it runs per national curriculum?

You have yet to prove anything other than "wealthy" and "poorer off" being highly subjective terms and that they get bandied about in a ridiculous begrudging convenient 'class war' when issues like this arise.

All of this info is being somewhat politely ignored you see.

I gave examples of sacrifices (on my parent's behalf and on mine) - an actual multitude of sacrifices, and what happened? ONE was picked out (not drinking until starting college) and somehow twisted into a "people in public schools dont do this" by another poster, as well as it being implied that I have used "connections" (whatever they are) to succeed lol :rolleyes: - what's the point?

When there's an agenda there's an agenda, and anything you say will be twisted to suit said agenda.

Godge · 10-10-2012 12:06PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Each student in private education costs 3500 less to the state than a student in public education, if you do away with this payment then the fees for these schools sky rockets and more than likely doubles.

Now the popular assumption is that these families can afford this but many of the parents sending their children to these schools are doing so at the expense of other luxries and cannot afford such a hiking of fees, this will lead to these children being reintroduced to the public system and thus costing the department of education twice as much. It is a numbers game but more than likely this will end up costing the taxpayer more than the 100 million being given to private schools.

Also people need to understand that in reality and legally the state is not subsidising private education. Each student is legally entitled to free education under our constitution so the parents who chose to send their children to private schools are effectively subsidising their childrens public education. But they are still paying the taxes that go towards education while their children are only costing the state half as much while they still pay fees that are generally in excess of what the state spends per student.

The problem with the calculations of increased costs to the Exchequer is that they are based on one fatally flawed assumption that every pupil and school will transfer to the state system.

Let us assume that the cost to the State is 20% more for every pupil. Therefore in order to cost 100 million, 83.33% of students would need to transfer to the State system (83.33 * 1.2 = 100).

So if 16.66% of students stay in the private system the state breaks even. What is the likely percentage of those who will stay in the private system if fees are doubled? A difficult question to answer. However, I would expect that the children of barristers, hospital consultants, top civil servants, accountants, lawyers, top executives in the private sector etc. would all continue to use the private sector. Others would go into debt and/or make greater sacrifices.

If I am right, I would expect on a conservative estimate that at least 40% of the pupils would remain in the private schools. That would mean a cost to the State of educating the remaining 60% at €72m, a saving to the State of €28m if they choose to abolish the subsidy of €100m.

However, in reality the subsidy is unlikely to be abolished. Didn't they increase the student/teacher ratio last year greater than the public schools? Expect a repeat and the year after as well. It is easy to say we took €10m off the private schools instead of cutting special needs provision but we still give those privileged people €90m. Very hard for the private schools to argue against that.

If my figures are right, wouldn't the Minister be better off cutting €10m for the next three years and saving €30m while the fees go up by a smaller amount and less spillage into the public sector and arguing he is doing that to save special needs provision? He would have less flak from South Dublin and the general public would support him as well. He would save the same amount with much less hassle.

JustinDee · 10-10-2012 12:26PM

Godge wrote: »

The problem with the calculations of increased costs to the Exchequer is that they are based on one fatally flawed assumption that every pupil and school will transfer to the state system

It isn't a flaw. It is a very real possibility. If a school goes under due to cut in funding, then the pupil must attend somewhere else.

spank_inferno · 10-10-2012 12:26PM

Godge wrote: »

wouldn't the Minister be better off cutting €10m for the next three years and saving €30m while the fees go up by a smaller amount and less spillage into the public sector and arguing he is doing that to save special needs provision? He would have less flak from South Dublin and the general public would support him as well. He would save the same amount with much less hassle.

I would agree.... phased down approach would work.

I'd phase the reduction in monies on a slower scale though, say 5% or less reduction over a few years.

It allows the parents a chance to decide what they wish to do for the current or future child.

JustinDee · 10-10-2012 12:28PM

Godge wrote: »

He would have less flak from South Dublin

Explain this?
What is "South Dublin" supposed to represent in this post of yours?

Geuze · 10-10-2012 12:34PM

Note that all primary schools in Irl are private.

All second-level schools (ex VEC) are private.

The distinction is between fee-paying and non-fee-paying schools.

Sleepy · 10-10-2012 12:56PM

JustinDee wrote: »

This is just a class thing, is it? Pull the other one.
What about the example I gave re.my neighbours? Are they a worse off 'class' than myself? Or am I worse off?
Why should fees for university (an optional extension of one's education forming years) be subsidised and not those of a secondary facility, even though the latter is entitled as it runs per national curriculum?

You have yet to prove anything other than "wealthy" and "poorer off" being highly subjective terms and that they get bandied about in a ridiculous begrudging convenient 'class war' when issues like this arise.

Why should fees for university be subsidised and not those of a secondary facility?

Well, for a start, I've not said I'm necessarily against the subsidisation of private schools in the current environment if the sums show it to be cheaper to continue to subsidise them in the short term.

Ideologically, I'm against their very existence of these schools as I don't believe any child should be provided with a better education than any other child. It's simply too important a factor in one's chances for a good life to allow inequality to exist here imo.

Can we shelve the concept of wealth by agreeing that some people, no matter what sacrifices they make would be able to send their children to a fee-paying school? Taking that line as the divide between "wealthy" and "poor" is certainly arbitrary in deciding what class one belongs to but in the context of the discussion it leaves access to these better funded schools only available to those that are "more wealthy" than those who cannot afford this.

Sure, many in that "can afford it" category will choose not to: favouring family holidays, nicer cars etc. or simply judging the local national school to be "good enough" but they have the option should they desire it. The other grouping don't. That's inequality of access to education and an undesirable thing in any country wishing to consider itself developed or "fair" imo.

I can understand the argument for segregation of students into better facilitated schools based on merit: i.e. funnelling some extra funding into our best and brightest or targeting lower performers with SNA's etc. but I can't see how it's equitable (or even a good allocation of society's resources) to segregate education based on the relative wealth (again, in the limited context discussed above) or priorities of a child's parents.

So, back to your university point: all Irish students have equal opportunity to access our universities. You get in based on your CAO/CAS points and can avail of grants / some forms of social welfare in order to survive whilst there if you can't provide this funding yourself. In other words: access is based on merit (admittedly it's easier for those whose parents can help them out with a few quid / a roof over their heads but these forums are littered with people who did it the hard way and the education they received will have been as good as that of the richest students in their class even if the experience may not have been as enjoyable).

I know there are some non-affiliated private colleges (Daddy's Business School etc.) but to my knowledge these receive no state funding and are almost universally regarded as inferior to those that receive state funding.

The only exceptions I can think of are Kings Inns / Blackhall Place and anyone trying to argue that these are anything but an old boys/gals club for the rich and privileged are simply deluded.

Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

Comments